Beijing Times found the purchase order on the website of the Wenzhou district police department, took a screen capture of the order, and posted it on social media with a brief explanation of its origins. The purchase order includes two items: software for injecting trojans onto mobile phones, and a trojan for spying on mobile phone conversations, text messages, and image messages on Android and for jail breaking an iPhone. The first item cost RMB 100,000 yuan (approximately US $16,000) and the second item costed RMB 4,900 yuan (approximately US $800).

The fact that the purchase order for such a sensitive item was uploaded to the police site seems odd -- perhaps surveillance software is now so run-of-the-mill and pervasive that the police no longer regard its use as controversial. The other interesting aspect of this story is that Beijing Times was digging around on the police Web site in the first place, and that having found something rather interesting, decided to publish it, rather than discreetly forget about it. Even better, this rather bold action inspired others to get digging for similar purchase orders. Remarkably, they found some, including this:

a software tool that collects messages from overseas social media including Twitter, Facebook and Google plus. Authorities in Taian city purchased data collection software and content posting software intended to help “counter public opinion” on nine major social media platforms, both in China and overseas.

Again, no real surprises there, but it's good to have more detailed information about who's using which surveillance tool, and for what purpose.

In case you can't read that, here's the rather extraordinary admission it contains:

May I point out that what you are getting is a "contraband copy", made in this Department, of another "contraband copy" made by the DPP [Director of Public Prosecutions, the official responsible for prosecuting criminal offenses] from a copy which he legitimately obtained from the shorthand writers on the usual commercial basis. The making of extra copies in this way is, I think, a breach of the shorthand writers' copyright and I think that they would be aggrieved if they knew about it. I should therefore be grateful if you would use the enclosures with discretion.

That is, one of the UK's top legal officials admits to making an infringing copy of an existing infringing copy made by another top legal official, and writes to ask that the Prime Minister's office keep this bit of governmental piracy quiet. After all, who cares about what the law says when you are the law?

from the because-involuntary-taxes-aren't-thieving-enough dept

The Department of Justice and its underlings (the FBI and nearyl every law enforcement agency in the nation) have turned the ideal of asset forfeiture (defund drug dealers; return money to the defrauded, etc.) into a free-roaming, many-tentacled opportunistic beast, one that "liberates" any amount of "suspicious" cash from tourists, legitimate business owners or anyone else who just happens to have "too much" cash in their possession.

For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away — until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her checking account, almost $33,000.

The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes — in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report.

The person whose money has been seized isn't necessarily guilty of anything. Hinders hasn't been arrested, nor does there appear to be any sort of ongoing investigation. The IRS hasn't hit Hinders with tax liens for unpaid taxes or subjected her to an audit. All it did was look at records for her deposits and decide that because none of them surpassed the $10,000 mark (which triggers automatic reporting), everything in the account must be somehow illegal.

Civil forfeiture is an in rem proceeding against the property itself, not the owner of property. Civil forfeiture is a process that is separated from, and not dependent on, a criminal prosecution. Civil forfeiture can proceed administratively or judicially.

Hinders never needs to be charged. In fact, she never needs to be heard from again. The IRS can seize and hold this money indefinitely and decide whether or not the $33,000 is "guilty" without any input from Hinders. To opportunistic agents, any sub-$10,000 deposit is "evidence" that the depositer is deliberately avoiding reporting requirements, rather doing so for any number of more mundane, less criminal reasons.

Since he bought it in 1978, Terry Dehko has owned Schott’s Supermarket in Fraser, Michigan. His daughter, Sandy, began working at the store when she was 12 and now helps her father run it. The IRS has not argued before a court of law that Terry and Sandy have committed a crime, but that has not stopped it from seizing their entire bank account, worth over $35,000. The IRS claims that Terry and Sandy violated federal anti-money laundering laws by making regular deposits of cash in amounts less than $10,000.

But the IRS has offered no evidence that money laundering has occurred. In fact, it has done nothing more than seize Dehko's money. The explanation for Dehko's deposit patterns make perfect sense, but perfect sense won't fund further IRS activity.

Their insurance policy, aimed at small businesses like their grocery store, protects them from theft, but only up to $10,000. Since any dollar over 10,000 left in the store is liable to uninsurable theft, Terry and Sandy make sure their revenues are deposited in their bank account before accumulating above $10,000.

Anyone nailed by an IRS seizure can fight for the return of their money, but there's nothing resembling due process here. Those choosing to do so would have to file a lawsuit intervening in the IRS's forfeiture case. In other words, the situation must be forced. Simply showing up and defending money from accusations of wrongdoing isn't enough. In fact, it isn't even a possibility, at least not in this case. Prosecutors for the Dehko case offered the them a "deal:" an implicit admission of guilt via a plea bargain (presumably on behalf of the guilty money) and the return of 20% of the seized funds.

There are more stories like this. A dairy had $70,000 seized by the IRS after a string of deposits following the sale of farm equipment raised bank eyebrows. Again, prosecutors offered a pennies-on-the-dollar settlement to the couple whose assets were taken. A 27-year-old vending business, heavily reliant on cash flow, had nearly $450,000 seized. Again, "structuring" of deposits was the excuse used to justify the government's theft of earned income. The IRS civil forfeiture system is every bit as crooked as the one being abused by law enforcement agencies. Perverted incentives have demolished restraint and fairness and turned it into an extremely efficient way to stockpile cash.

According to the Institute for Justice, the Department of Justice’s Asset Forfeiture Fund held $93.7 million of seized assets in 1986. In 2008, that fund was greater than $1 billion…

Fortunately for the Dehkos, they won their battle against the government and had the seized funds returned. The IRS was ordered to produce proof of wrongdoing or release the funds. It chose the latter and was additionally held responsible for $71,500 in attorneys' fees. Dropping the case also allowed the IRS to walk away from the debacle without further legal examination of its civil asset seizure policies. So, while the Dehkos obtained a win, the IRS ultimately learned nothing from the experience. The fact that the average forfeiture battle racks up over $20,000 in legal fees means that more often than not, the IRS will get to keep nearly everything it seizes.

from the seems-troubling dept

There were reports a few weeks ago that the European Commission has reopened its antitrust investigation into Google. The main issue is how Google promotes certain (usually internal) results in so-called "answer boxes" in a way that may hurt other sites. We've been skeptical of the idea of European bureaucrats deciding what Google's search results should look like, but earlier this year, it appeared that a settlement had been reached in which Google would point to competitors' results in some cases.

Against this backdrop, a few organizations, led by Yelp and TripAdvisor have created a somewhat fascinating site and tool called Focus On The User -- a play on Google's own core philosophy of "focus on the user and all else will follow." The site makes a very compelling argument that when Google is returning opinions (i.e., ratings) rather than factual answers, that it could do a much better job than just pointing to results from Google+. That is, if you do a search on "best restaurants in San Francisco" Google will show you results as rated by Google+ user reviews.

The Focus on the User site shows that rather than just relying on Google's own data, users would benefit greatly if Google used its own search algorithm to pull in results from reviews elsewhere. In short, where you might see a box up top with seven to ten reviews (all linking to Google pages), Yelp and TripAdvisor are arguing that if you just used Google's "organic" search algorithm to find the most relevant review pages, consumers get a much better experience. And they have a fair amount of data to back that up, showing a greater number of clicks in such a box (which you can test yourself via the site).

As noted above, the results are compelling. Using Google's own algorithm to rank all possible reviews seems like a pretty smart way of doing things, and likely to give better results than just using Google's (much more limited) database of reviews. But here's the thing: while I completely agree that this is how Google should offer up reviews in response to "opinion" type questions, I still am troubled by the idea that this should be dictated by government bureaucrats. Frankly, I'm kind of surprised this isn't the way Google operates, and it's a bit disappointing that the company doesn't just jump on this as a solution voluntarily, rather than dragging it out and having the bureaucrats force it upon them.

So while the site is fascinating, and the case is compelling, it still has this problem of getting into a very touchy territory where we're expecting government's to design the results of search engines. It seems like Yelp, TripAdvisor and others can make the case to Google and the public directly that this is a better way to do things, rather than having the government try to order Google to use it.

[Paula] Pedene, 56, is the former chief spokeswoman for this VA hospital. Now, she is living in a bureaucrat's urban legend. After complaining to higher-ups about mismanagement at this hospital, she has been reassigned — indefinitely — to a desk in the basement.

Now, the good news is that investigators are still trying to determine whether this reassignment to the depths of the hospital was retaliatory. The bad news is that even if they can prove this, there's likely nothing that can be done about it.

In the past, whistleblowers have had their desks moved to break rooms, broom closets and basements. It's a clever punishment, good-government activists say, that exploits a gray area in the law.

The whole thing can look minor on paper. They moved your office. So what? But the change is designed to afflict the striving soul of a federal worker, with a mix of isolation, idle time and lost prestige.

And, of course, this isn't an isolated incident. Another contractor interviewed spent 16 months in a basement office after alerting regulators about improper radioactive material processing. An Air Force chemist found himself sweeping the floor of his basement office after uncovering mismanagement. As for Pedene, her whistleblowing helped uncover an $11 million budget shortfall, one that led to the voluntary resignation of hospital's director. Instead of adding another accolade to her active 20 years of service, Pedene's office was moved as far away as possible from the rest of the hospital and her responsibilities almost completely eliminated.

Those in charge used this minor breach as the supposed justification for moving her downstairs.

The chief accusation was that Pedene had let her husband upload photos of a VA-sponsored Veterans Day parade onto her work computer. He was helping her finish a PowerPoint presentation she was working on. He was a non-VA employee, working on a VA computer.

The hospital refuses to address any questions about Pedene's situation, claiming it was a decision made by her previous boss -- one that was forced out during the recent investigation that uncovered the use of bogus wait lists to cover up how long patients were waiting for treatment.

The scant legal protections Pedene can avail herself of look much better on paper than in practice.

In theory, it is illegal to make the basement into a bureaucratic purgatory. In 1994, for instance, Congress prohibited agencies from making significant changes in a whistleblower's "working conditions" as punishment for speaking out.

But in practice, the situation is murkier. Some courts have said moving an employee to a basement or closet usually amounts to punishment. But others have said this is a decision that should be made case by case. How nice is the basement office? How big is the closet?

What makes this tougher for the people being relegated to basements or closets is there are no easily-definable damages to be pursued -- which makes it unlikely that many lawyers would be interested in pursuing the case. And so, the government gets away with it. It can still pretend it's looking out for whistleblowers while ignoring those who have simply been removed from their visible positions and offices and stripped of their responsibilities. All this does is guarantee that more and more malfeasance will be the result of very public leaks rather than issues that could be handled internally with a minimal of PR damage.

The government likes to actively punish leakers but it doesn't treat those who go through proper channels much better. It would apparently rather have abuse and misconduct remain out of sight and out of mind and remain secure in its delusion that its agencies are staffed with good people doing good work.

from the what-privacy dept

Snapchat is often pitched as a more "private" alternative to other messaging apps, considering that a key part of its pitch is that the messages/images you send to others quickly disappear. For years, people have pointed out that Snapchat was overstating the reality when making those claims, and last week the FTC spanked the company for misleading its users about the privacy and security of their messages. And, this week, the "privacy" claims of Snapchat get another black eye as the EFF's latest Who Has Your Back? chart has come out, detailing how various services deal with protecting your privacy from the US government. Want to know who came in dead last? Snapchat:

Just a couple weeks ago, we had noted that a bunch of tech companies had been improving their policies in an attempt to score better on this annual report from the EFF. And, indeed, as you look down the full list, you see a lot more stars than when EFF started this list. Back then, lots of companies only got one star (or less!), though the categories weren't exactly the same (EFF has added a few over the years).

Want to know just how bad Snapchat is? Even AT&T and Comcast score better. Snapchat was the only company with one star. Amazon and AT&T only got two. Comcast (along with Foursquare and Myspace) had three. At the top of the list, Apple, CREDO Mobile, Dropbox, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Sonic.net, Twitter and Yahoo all got five stars. Some might question some of this, given stories of things like Microsoft changing Skype to grant greater government access, but on the specific categories that EFF judges for the ratings, they appear to be accurate.

Of course, to be fair, one of the categories is whether or not the company "fights for users' privacy rights in courts." That's an important measure, but it's also a conditional one. All of the other categories can be done by any company of their own volition, but you can't fight in court if there are no opportunities to go to court to protect your users' privacy. Either way, it's good to see that the EFF chart is having an impact in getting companies to be more aggressive in protecting the privacy of their users from the government. But, really, shame on Snapchat for positioning itself as a privacy option when it appears to do very little to actually protect people's privacy.

from the they're-supposed-to-earn-it-before-you-give-it-to-them dept

Despite the current administration's track record on transparency (completely lousy from nearly every angle), there's little being done by the majority of the press to work around the roadblocks being set up by the government. While the administration has offered a few half-measures aimed at reining in the NSA in the wake of the leaks, the ODNI (Office of the Director of National Intelligence) has gone the other way, forbidding employees from speaking to the media about even unclassified information.

One of the most surprising developments over that period over the past ten years, is the steep decline in the percentage of journalists who say that using confidential documents without permission "may be justified." That number has plummeted from about 78 percent in 2002 to just 58 percent in 2013. In 1992, it was over 80 percent.

There are several theories as to the drop in the number of journalists willing to publish leaks or push reluctant individuals for information. Some of that is the political climate. The report notes that journalists identify themselves as Democrats at a rate of 4-to-1 over Republicans, so there may be some deferral to the "home team" administration. Backing this theory up is the fact that the highest numbers listed here were recorded during the two Bush presidencies.

Then there's the general chill against whistleblowing, one that has never been colder than it is right now. It's been well documented that the Obama administration has prosecuted more than twice as many whistleblowers than all other administrations combined. Post-Wikileaks and post-Manning, there aren't too many journalism outlets willing to sacrifice freedom for a story.

Other, more questionable methods (hidden mics, confidential informants, buying documents), are on the decline as well. Again, the administration's aggressive push to snuff out leaks is partly to blame, as well as the legal ramifications of questionable tactics deployed by UK tabloids, which have raised the ire of both that nation's politicians as well as the targets of these "investigative" efforts. Better safe than jailed/fined/sued, it would appear.

The Associated Press found, when conducting its annual review of responses to Freedom of Information Act requests, that the "government more than ever censored materials it turned over or fully denied access to them, in 244,675 cases or 36 percent of all requests. On 196,034 other occasions, the government said it couldn't find records, a person refused to pay for copies or the government determined the request to be unreasonable or improper." The media organization concluded the "government's efforts to be more open about its activities last year were their worst since President Barack Obama took office."

First, you seal off the documents. Then, you start threatening the access. Faced with this, it appears many journalistic entities have decided to defer to authority and simply publish unquestioned statements from officials unwilling to back up their words with a name.

The number one complaint most New York Times readers tend to have is that reporters are overly reliant on anonymous sources for information. Public editor Margaret Sullivan has written about this issue, suggesting "readers are right to protest when they see anonymity granted gratuitously" but also acknowledging the crackdown on leaks by the Obama administration may have something to do with people unwilling to talk to reporters on the record.

The number of "anonymous officials" is on the rise, partly due to the administration's own dim view of sharing info with the press. But this makes any statement made completely questionable. If the official is afforded anonymity, there's no accountability. And yet, these statements are delivered by the press in a largely credulous fashion.

What Gostola sees this boiling down to is the most cherished of journalistic tools: access. Journalists are unwilling to sacrifice access for better, harder-hitting reporting. Being shut out means falling behind, even if your integrity remains intact. And an anonymous source is still one more source than is available to those locked out due to their aggressive reporting, even if the statements are little more than rephrased talking points.

The problem is that, despite this evidence, the media still believes it's an effective means of government accountability, even as this same government has convinced many of them that they have neither the expertise nor the right to publish leaked documents or otherwise route around official outlets. Two journalistic outlets went the other way and received Pulitzers for doing so, but in the eyes of many others, publishing leaks still "isn't journalism." But somehow, taking anonymous statements at face value is.

from the no,-but-you-guys-should-totally-do-it dept

Vice President Joe Biden is in China and as usual, he took the opportunity to try to insert his foot in his mouth. China may be veering towards its own brand of capitalism simply because it's a manufacturing powerhouse, but it's still a long way from being an open country in any other respect.

“Innovation can only occur when you can breathe free, challenge the government, challenge your teachers, challenge religious leaders.”

All well and good, I suppose. Of course, it's much easier said than done, and Biden's contribution only included the "saying" part. These sort of challenges have actual repercussions in China, which still wishes unruly citizens into high-walled political cornfields prisons.

But what's even more irritating about his blithe statement is the fact that his own administration isn't really keen on being challenged by its citizens.

Case in point: the NSA leaks. For a long time, the administration stood firm in its support of the agency. It only stepped back when it realized the situation was going to get a whole lot worse before it got any better and that the NSA itself wasn't just lying to the public, but to the president and the rest of the government as well. It also smelled blood in the water after amendments and bills targeting the NSA and its programs began gathering bipartisan support and wanted to be as far away from the massacre on the horizon.

This administration has also prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other administrations combined. This is what happens to people who challenge the administration. They end up broken by the system, the same system that tells them it wants to be "open" and "transparent."

The administration has also shown a fondness for shutting out inquiring minds with the overuse of state secret exceptions. Sure, information may want to be free, but its overseers won't let it roam without being covered in black ink. Its track record on civil liberties has eclipsed the awfulness of the Bush administration, which at least had the courtesy to be openly evil in its intentions.

Now, I realize that as vice president, Biden doesn't truly represent the administration. He may be second-in-command, but the reality of the job demands someone who can stay out of the way while whipping up support for the administration's policies and pet legislation behind the scenes. It requires him to make appearances on behalf of the administration but kindly asks him not to embarrass it while doing so. Biden has failed to hold up his end of the bargain with his statements.

Here he hands Chinese citizens advice they can't possibly use while simultaneously highlighting the hypocrisy inherent in the administration's treatment of criticism. "Challenge your government," he tells people who can be ripped from their families for doing so before retreating to the safety of an administration that actively seeks out and punishes those who challenge its methods and actions. With this mindless bit of "go team!" posturing, Joe Biden is hurling stones from the balcony of the administration's glass house.

from the no-expectation-of-accuracy dept

Okay, so as a bunch of folks have been sending over today, there's been a bit of a furor over a press release pushed out by Consumer Watchdog, a hilariously ridiculous group that has decided that Google is 100% pure evil. The "story" claims that Google has admitted in court that there is no expectation of privacy over Gmail. This is not actually true -- but we'll get to that. This story is a bit complex because the claims in most of the news coverage about this are simply wrong -- but I still think Google made a big mistake in making this particular filing. So, first, let's explain why the coverage is completely bogus trumped up bullshit from Consumer Watchdog, and then we'll explain why Google still shouldn't have made this filing.

First off, you may recall Consumer Watchdog from previous stunts such as a putting together a hilariously misleading and almost 100% factually inaccurate video portrayal of Eric Schmidt, which was all really part of an effort to sell more copies of its founder's book (something the group flat out admitted to us in an email). They're not a consumer watchdog site -- they're a group that makes completely hogwash claims to try to generate attention on a campaign to attack Google.

The press release from Consumer Watchdog fits along its typical approach to these things: take something totally out of context, put some hysterical and inaccurate phrasing around it, dump an attention-grabbing headline on it and send it off to the press. In this case, it claimed that Google had said in a court filing that you have no expectation of privacy with Gmail. That got a bunch of folks in the press to bite with wildly inaccurate headlines:

The first three of those headlines are simply flat-out factually incorrect. I mean, not even close, and it's fairly incredible that those come from the three more "established" or "mainstream" news publications. The last three are slightly more correct, but still completely miss the point. The best debunking of these claims so far comes from Nilay Patel at the Verge who breaks down the details. The filing, which is from over a month ago, is a response to an absolutely, monumentally bogus class action lawsuit filed against Google, arguing, hilariously, that it's a violation of wiretap laws to put ads next to emails based on the text of those emails. No, seriously.

As Patel points out, first, if you put the argument back into context, it's not even about Gmail users -- as the top three headlines above falsely state. Google is arguing that non-Gmail users are consenting to the fact that when they send an email, the ISPs who receive the email will automatically process them. This should not be controversial. At all. Without that concept email doesn't work. As the filing states (which the folks hyping this ignore):

Non-Gmail users who send emails to Gmail recipients must expect that their emails will be subjected to Google's normal processes as the [email] provider for their intended recipients.

In other words, there's no "there" there. All Google was arguing was that courts have held that if you are using a communication service, there's a perfectly reasonable (in fact, expected) recognition that the service provider will have the right to process some information about that communication. In the context of the case that Google cites, the infamous Smith v. Maryland, the argument is that the business provider is reasonably expected to be able to track the user's activity. That's not controversial. The controversial step that Smith v. Maryland then makes is to argue that because the service provider has a right to that basic information it means that the end user has no expectation of privacy with regards to the government getting access to the same info. That's the problem with Smith v. Maryland -- the failure to recognize that massive difference between me (1) consenting to let my phone company record who I make phone calls to in exchange for the ability to make calls and (2) the expectation that it's okay for the government to collect that very same info without a warrant.

Google's citation of Smith v. Maryland is to make the first half of that argument -- showing that courts recognize the obvious: that when you use a communication service, there are certain aspects of information that you know the service provider is going to have access to. Without that you don't have email, or (realistically speaking) the internet.

So, this is all much ado about nothing.

Except... I still think it was a mistake for Google to use this legal argument, and I'm somewhat surprised Google's legal team let this go through in place. First, Google does not need this citation to make this point. There are other cases that can make this point effectively without touching on the government spying aspect. But, the real reason why this is a mistake is that Google has given fairly strong indications in recent statements that it's willing to fight back against certain government requests for user info (and that it's done so in the past). In those cases, the government is absolutely going to cite Smith v. Maryland as its evidence that users have no expectation of privacy in their communications and now they'll also point out that Google cited the case approvingly. Google will want to argue that Smith v. Maryland is outdated law and was decided wrongly and/or in a different time under a different technology ecosystem. And this is a very, very strong argument that has a good chance of winning. But the ability of the government to point out that Google has, in other cases, cited the Smith precedent approvingly -- even if it was really only part of the Smith precedent -- could undermine their arguments against Smith in future cases down the road.

Either way: the freakout here is totally manufactured by a bogus, laughable group that is spreading ideas that would do massive harm to the internet based on a near total ignorance of how things work. Yes, people are on edge given the NSA revelations, but this "gotcha" is no "gotcha" at all. It's just more evidence of the sheer duplicity of Consumer Watchdog. That said, it was still short-sighted for Google to make this claim in a filing. They didn't need the citation, and while it may help them win this ridiculous class action lawsuit, it may come back to bite them down the road in more important cases.

from the looks-like-someone's-going-to-spend-some-time-at-the-Ministry-of-Love! dept

The administration's "Insider Threat" program was discussed here a few weeks ago. Apparently, the government has been running dangerously low on whistleblowers to prosecute and now is seeking help from its employees in identifying "threats" to the government -- some of which may be no more than a cubicle away.

The national "spy on your neighbor" program (See Something, Say Something) has now been internalized by the government, which openly encourages its employees to view their co-workers with suspicion. Leaks = "aiding the enemy," according to official documents and one can't be too careful in this post-Snowden climate of forced transparency.

To that end, the government has introduced a couple of training modules/interactive games aimed at heightening suspicion levels in federal offices. There are two versions: one for the Dept. of Defense and one for regular "federal employees." You score points by following the rules and outing co-workers whose behavior indicates they might up and tear the country a new one by blowing whistles.

A security training test created by a Defense Department agency warns federal workers that they should consider the hypothetical Indian-American woman a "high threat" because she frequently visits family abroad, has money troubles and "speaks openly of unhappiness with U.S. foreign policy."

Yes. It's true. An inherently untrustworthy foreigner has made things worse on herself by exercising her First Amendment rights and openly having her vehicle repossessed. A good citizen loves our country's thousands of rules and policies and pays their bills on time -- no exceptions.

And who in their right, non-threatening mind would want to leave the country once, much less several times? Seriously. The hassle at the airports alone would seem to be enough to deter a non-Caucasian from making more than one trip abroad.

While this example may seem stupid at best and borderline racist at worst, a spokesman for the Pentagon defended the program's virtues in a statement to Huffington Post.

Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Damien Pickart said, "DISA was sensitive to any civil liberty concerns that might arise from any portion of the curriculum, which is why it coordinated with 26 federal agencies to ensure the maximum amount of input was received before going live."

"When considering personnel for a position of trust that requires a security clearance, there are many potential indicators that must be considered when evaluating for insider threat concerns," he explained. "The department takes these variables into consideration based on past examples of personnel who engaged in spying or treasonous acts."

Several million people across the federal government have taken the training since it was released, Pickart said, and there has been only one complaint...

Anyone familiar with government work knows that increasing the number of agencies involved has very little bearing on overall quality of output. In fact, it's more frequently noted that the quality is inversely proportionate to the number of bureaucrats involved.

And as for there being only one complaint? Well, holy shit, what did you expect? The program itself makes the none-too-subtle point that complaining about the government is a great way to end up with the word "Snowden" taped surreptitiously to your back by your newly trained co-workers.

Now, if you're truly curious, you can attempt to play the interactive CyberAwareness Challenge. Chrome users are somewhat discouraged from making the attempt. My personal experience boiled down to a lot of load time broken up by occasional "challenges" and questions that had all the depth and nuance of a Dora the Explorer episode.

The challenge level may go up the further you proceed in the game, but I can't offer any insight on that. The load times are so long, it's tough to believe you'll have a chance to round up any "insider threats" before they've boarded the next plane to Moscow. Or retired.

All hyperbole aside, this training program won't do much to find insider threats, who are likely not nearly as easy to identify as the rather spurious list of "indicators" would have federal employees believe. And the last thing the government should be doing is incubating the idea that exposing government wrongdoing is only a step or two removed from actual terrorism. Attempting to weed out "dissent" by turning government employees against each other is only going to foster more of the behavior these agencies are trying to stamp out.